ecls-list

In preparation for the upcoming release I have reactivated the maintenance
of the NSIS script, which allows making self-installing executables of
ECL... on Windows, of course.
I need help polishing this. As a test I have uploaded one preliminary
version here:
http://ecls.sourceforge.net/ecl-11.1.1.exe
I do not know what are the dependencies of this executable, whether it needs
some additional Windows C runtime, etc. In particular, since I have
Microsoft Visual Studio installed in all computers I am not sure whether it
works on other, cleaner boxes. The other question is how to make this
installer work also with lesser priorities, which currently does not seem to
be the case. Could you help me test it?
Juanjo
--
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com

It seems that during the night the whole webpage was backed up to a previous
state. It must be one of my cron jobs.
I have uploaded the executable to the SourceForge File Release System, in a
directory called "sandbox"
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ecls/files/ecls/sandbox/
The self-installer has been created using Microsoft Visual Studio 2008. If
it causes problems, we might switch to Mingw32, but I would rather not do
that.
Juanjo
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll <
juanjose.garciaripoll@...> wrote:
> In preparation for the upcoming release I have reactivated the maintenance
> of the NSIS script, which allows making self-installing executables of
> ECL... on Windows, of course.
>
> I need help polishing this. As a test I have uploaded one preliminary
> version here:
> http://ecls.sourceforge.net/ecl-11.1.1.exe
>
> I do not know what are the dependencies of this executable, whether it
> needs some additional Windows C runtime, etc. In particular, since I have
> Microsoft Visual Studio installed in all computers I am not sure whether it
> works on other, cleaner boxes. The other question is how to make this
> installer work also with lesser priorities, which currently does not seem to
> be the case. Could you help me test it?
>
> Juanjo
>
> --
> Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
> c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
> http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com
>
--
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com

On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:14:26 +0100, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll <juanjose.garciaripoll@...> wrote:
> The self-installer has been created using Microsoft Visual Studio 2008. If
> it causes problems, we might switch to Mingw32, but I would rather not do
> that.
The positive side of using Mingw, is that, from my experience, the
resulting ECL library does not depend on any kind of anything external
entities, not already present on a typical windows install.
Use of a MSVS-built ECL, again, from my experience, requires
installation of the Visual C redistributable on the user machine.
--
regards,
Samium Gromoff
--
"Actually I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I can tell you I
did not have C++ in mind." - Alan Kay (OOPSLA 1997 Keynote)

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Samium Gromoff <_deepfire@...
> wrote:
> The positive side of using Mingw, is that, from my experience, the
> resulting ECL library does not depend on any kind of anything external
> entities, not already present on a typical windows install.
>
I have not tested this with Mingw, but I fixed the self-installing
executable so that it now contains the Unicode database and Microsoft's
redistributable files. I tested it on a rather clean (do not know 100% sure)
Windows image.
Juanjo
--
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com

<div>Hello.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>It's only my opinion, I can't say for all Windows user, but I personally prefer just a .zip or .tgz archive.</div><div>Installer doesn't make too much sense for me, and if there would be both installer and .zip available, I would choze .zip.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>What I mean, If other Wiindows users have the same opinion, you may save some efforts.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Best regards,</div><div>- Anton</div><div>&nbsp;</div>

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Marko Kocić <marko.kocic@...> wrote:
> Since we are talking about opinions, I'll add mine. Installer makes sense
> if it includes everything one needs to create programs using ECL, including
> bundled gcc, like for example GHC for windows. If you need separate mingw or
> VS installation besides ECL, installer doesn't add much value over zip.
ECL now ships with a bytecodes compiler and thus it is self-contained, in as
much as the user does not require some C compiler, such as FFI. At some
point, if libffi becomes easily integrated, then ECL might not need the C
compiler at all.
Juanjo
--
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@...>wrote:
> It's only my opinion, I can't say for all Windows user, but I personally
> prefer just a .zip or .tgz archive.
> Installer doesn't make too much sense for me, and if there would be both
> installer and .zip available, I would choze .zip.
>
Doing one or the other does not make a difference. I was in general
reluctant to distribute binaries for other reasons: difficult to assert the
quality of it, variety of possible builds, etc.
> What I mean, If other Wiindows users have the same opinion, you may save
> some efforts.
>
The distribution of binaries is motivated by a general complaint of Windows
users that ECL does not provide self-installing executables and it is very
difficult to get running -- requires msys, mingw, or msvc, or something like
that.
Juanjo
--
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com

06.01.11, 01:04, "Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll" <juanjose.garciaripoll@...>:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov@...> wrote:
> > It's only my opinion, I can't say for all Windows user, but I personally prefer just a .zip or .tgz archive.
> > Installer doesn't make too much sense for me, and if there would be both installer and .zip available, I would choze .zip.
>
> Doing one or the other does not make a difference. I was in general reluctant to distribute binaries for other reasons: difficult to assert the quality of it, variety of possible builds, etc.
> > What I mean, If other Wiindows users have the same opinion, you may save some efforts.
>
> The distribution of binaries is motivated by a general complaint of Windows users that ECL does not provide self-installing executables and it is very difficult to get running -- requires msys, mingw, or msvc, or something like that.
>
Ah, yes, having binaries would be great. If installer is no more difficult that just an archive, then OK.
Best regards,
- Anton